1. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs.

Philippine Blooming
Mills Co., Inc. 51 SCRA 189

Facts:

Petitioner Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a

mass demonstration in front of Malacañang in order to express their grievances against
the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police.

After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc.,
called for a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned
demonstration was confirmed by the union. But it was stressed that the demonstration
was not a strike against the company but was in fact an exercise of the laborers
inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom
for petition for redress of grievances.

The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt the normal
course of their business which may result in the loss of revenue. This was backed up with
the threat of the possibility that the workers would lose their jobs if they pushed through
with the rally.

A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their appeal that while the
workers may be allowed to participate, those from the 1st and regular shifts should not
participate in the demonstration, otherwise, they would be dismissed. Since it was too late
to pull back, the rally took place and the officers of the PBMEO were eventually
dismissed for a violation of the ‘No strike and No lockout’ clause of their Collective
Bargaining Agreement.

The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the PBMEO were
found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for reconsideration was
subsequently denied by the Court of Industrial relations for being filed two days late.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the workers constitutional rights to freedom of expression, freedom of

assembly and freedom to petition for redress of grievances should be upheld over the
company’s right to property.

2. Whether or not the mass demonstration of the PBMEO was a violation of the
company’s “No strike and No lockout”rule.

3. Whether or not the company was justified in dismissing the officers of the PBMEO

4. Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations was justified in dismissing PBMEO’s
motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was filed two days late.
Held:

1. The workers acted well within their constitutional rights in staging the rally. The fact
that they were willing to sacrifice a day’s wage in order to express their grievances
against the Pasig police only goes to show how important it was for them to fight for their
rights. The company was in fact informed by the union and it was stressed that the rally
was not against the company since they had no quarrel with management. Thus, the
demonstration was not a violation of the ‘No strike and No lockout’ clause but was in fact
a valid exercise of the workers constitutional rights.

2. The company’s right to property should yield to the workers Constitutional right to
freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to petition for redress of
grievances. The company’s loss of unrealized profits for the day of the strike is not as
important as the workers fight their rights. In fact, they were even able to save money on
the operational expenses for that day.

3-4. The Court of Industrial Relations should not be confined by technical and procedural
rules in its quest for justice. Since the CIR is a creature of the Legislature and even the
rules of the legislature itself must be liberally applied if strict adherence to it would result
in the denial of a person’s constitutional right, the CIR should not have denied their
motion for reconsideration. In doing so, the court divested itself of their jurisdiction
which renders their decision in favor of the company null and void. The CIR rules against
late filling cannot prevail over basic Constitutional rights

The eight officers of the PBMEO who were dismissed are thus reinstated and are entitled
to backwages.

Doctrines:

The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition are not only civil rights but also
political rights essential to man’s enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full
and complete fulfillment.

Human rights are supreme over property rights since property rights can be lost through
prescription while human rights do not prescribe.

A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,

namely EXISTENCE OF A GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER OF A
SUBSTANTIVE EVILWHICH THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT.

When a Court acts against the Constitution, its judgments and orders become null and
void.

A court may suspend its own rules whenever the purposes of justice requires it.